Scheimpflug keratometry versus conventional automated keratometry in routine cataract surgery

PURPOSE: To evaluate keratometry (K) readings obtained with an automated keratometer (IOLMaster) and Scheimpflug imaging (Pentacam) in eyes having routine cataract surgery and to compare the predicted and actual refractive outcomes. SETTING: Epsom/St. Helier University Hospitals, London, United Kingdom. METHODS: In this retrospective study, the mean absolute prediction errors (MAEs) were obtained for automated keratometry and Scheimpflug keratometry: true net power, anterior K, and equivalent K [corrected] values for 1.0 to 7.0 mm corneal diameters. Eyes were divided into lower delta K (mean 1.15 diopters [D]) and higher delta K (mean 2.13 D) groups and lower preoperative astigmatism (mean 0.83 D) and higher preoperative astigmatism (mean 2.55 D) groups to determine notable trends. RESULTS: The study evaluated 29 eyes. The lowest MAE was 0.424 D +/- 0.421 (SD) for Scheimpflug equivalent [corrected] K at 3.0 mm; the second lowest was 0.452 +/- 0.359 D for automated keratometry, which had the smallest SD overall. The difference was not statistically significant. In the lower delta K and astigmatism groups, the automated keratometer had the lowest MAE and smallest standard deviation. In the higher groups, there was a trend toward increased accuracy for the Scheimpflug equivalent [corrected] K values at 3.0 mm. CONCLUSION: In this small study, Scheimpflug imaging was not superior to automated keratometry overall, but the data suggest a trend toward increased accuracy of Scheimpflug equivalent [corrected] K values in eyes with more irregular corneas. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE: No author has a financial or proprietary interest in any material or method mentioned.